Re: SQLJSON

On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht@8Kdata.com> wrote:

>
>    Thanks for asking for the double-check. No, indeed I'm still asking to provide the class files for the API in the
package.I feel that's the right way, and I don't see it would create conflicts unless JSR353 would create a new
version,something which I believe extremely unlikely until it merges with Java10 or JDBC5 comes out, point at which we
wouldneed to change things anyway. 

I do not believe this is as unlikely as you think.  For example, the javax.ws.rs JAX-RS spec has 22 different versions
availableon Maven Central.  Granted, many of these are milestone builds and not releases, but there are already two
majorversions, a patch available and a new minor version coming through the pipes. 

So assuming these spec jars will not change is provably false.  One of my fears is that if PG bundles JSR353 1.0, and I
needJSR353 1.0.1, I now need to fight the driver packaging to upgrade a theoretically unrelated package. 

>
>    However, I don't want to insist more or suck more dev bandwitch, that's my opinion and it's been stated more times
thanI wish, so I would now leave the decision to the rest of you :) 
>
>    Regards,
>
>    Alvaro
>
>
> --
> Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
>
>
> -----------
> 8Kdata
>
>
>
> On 30/06/15 18:49, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>> ah. I meant to double-check with Álvaro if he is suggesting compile
>> type dependency.
>>
>> If he means that we in fact are discussing the same thing, so no
>> contradiction exists.
>>
>>> However, regarding POLA you say "compile dependency" which means you
>>> suggest _not_ including javax.json into pgjdbc.jar
>>>
>>> Álvaro , Can you please tell us if "using compile type dependency for both
>>> javax.json and RI" suits you?
>>>
>> Vladimir
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc